For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable.
This, in your view, is an analysis worhty of science, eh?
What about it that you didn’t understand?
I don’t understand what you are saying. Should all people who feel science needs to be defended do so in a passionless way? If not, how would you prefer that they defend the subject?
Since you are not working with the knowledge God has, why do you think you know more than He. What we have here is the student trying to tell the teacher how to run the class. Just doesn’t work that way. Perhaps when we gain knowledge and wisdom we will understand the why’s.
Complete non sequitur. Bricker questioned whether the moral judgments of ambushed’s post were a proper field of inquiry for science. As a great many defenders of science and the scientific method have noted, repeatedly, on this board, science does not legitimately address morality.
Bricker made no attack upon science.
Bricker made no attack upon the defense of science (which is not under direct attack in this thread).
Your question regarding the passion of defenders of science is irrelevant to that exchange.
:shrug: Well, like I said, I didn’t understand what he was trying to say.
A little more of that honesty would take you far on this board. 
I may be nit-picking here, but evidence is not falsifiable, theories and conjectures are.
It could well be that he studied to be a pastor but never became one. And it’s fair to say he was something like an agnostic when he grew old. My point was that he started out well within the tradition of religious types who at that time considered every subtle detail of the natural world they discovered to be further evidence of divine providence.
This is the most pointlessly over-reacting thread I have personally ever seen.
It’s also not “evidence found in science.” Science is a method. Evidence “found in science” means evidence that is found by scientific method.
There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science.
There is no other kind of evidence for it either, when you get right down to it.
You also ignored the part about how the cardinal smeared scoientists by calling them “unscientific” and accusing them of “avoiding overwhelming evidence” which does not exist. He’s a liar. That’s all there is to it.
Evidence is how you falsify or confirm a hypothesis or theory. It isn’t falsifiable in itself.
ID doesn’t even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis because it proposes nothing falsifiable by observable evidence.
By the way, this statement:
Is simply an opinion. It is not “evidence” for anything, it’s just a baseless conclusion, completely undemonstrated in the history of science.
This sentence doesn’t seem to go anywhere in the context of the paragraph:
He didn’t say he didn’t understand it, he said it made no logical sense.
Basically, you have said: I can’t understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it.
Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It’s what we call a non sequitur.
Nonsense. For example, if you are accused of killing somebody and a cop comes barging into your house to collect forensic samples without authorization, the results will be perfectly relevant, quite scientific, and utterly inadmissible in court.
Too bad for the Church, then, that Darwin and his intellectual progeny don’t (or didn’t, as the case may be…or have been…) put forth the notion that evolution – or, more correctly, the primary mechanism driving evolution – occurs randomly. Natural selection is a very much non-random explanation for the diversity (and possibly even the very presence) of life.
If anyone is arguing against evolution being a random, unguided process, they are arguing against strawmen.
Just to show the lekatts out there how limiting is even that failure to understand: Folks, it may be worse than that, if the multi-universe theories are correct, we may be the forgotten biological high school project of a junior God in the 11th dimensional universe, pray that the father of that god does not find us and toss us in the trash.
[Sub]Or eat us, I have to say that in my mind, it popped up an old cartoon that had a girl opening a refrigerator and screaming: “Oh no! Someone ate my biology experiment!” (Father in couch then looks up worried…)[/sub]
What do you mean by THAT!!!???!!!???!!!
But that’s completely beside the point. It wouldn’t be inadmissable because it wasn’t probative, just because it was improperly attained. I was disputing the erroneous assertion that “not all scientific evidence is admissable in court” which was stated with the implication that not all scientific evidence is empirically valid.